Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Like I said.
You guys have no fucking clue about innovation.
No, they do not. They wish to see everything fail but fossil fuels. It is somehow an ideological point that we must burn coal and oil.
The blades could quite easily be fitted with a noise device, one that has wavelenghts above human hearing, that would warn off the raptors, regular birds, and bats. An engineering problem, nothing more.
Unfortunately, the most cost effective, cleanest and available source of energy continues to be derived from petroleum and coal. I don't see the point of using sources of energy that make no sense and are heinously expensive, when we have sources that can provide us with money, jobs, and cheap energy available to us.
Comparative electrical generation costs - SourceWatch
On May 13, 2008, the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission released a comparison of the costs of of new generating capacity from various sources. The analysis for the comparison was prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc., a consulting firm that prepares studies for utilities, governmental regulators, law firms, and non-profit agencies.[1] These estimates include firming resource costs.
Busbar cost in cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars:
Coal:
Coal Supercritical: 10.554
Coal Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC): 11.481
Coal IGCC with Carbon Capture & Storage (IGCC with CCS): 17.317
Alternatives:
Biogas: 8.552
Wind: 8.910
Gas Combined Cycle: 9.382 (assumes $5.50 to $6.50/MMBtu for gas)
Geothermal: 10.182
Hydroelectric: 10.527
Concentrating solar thermal (CSP): 12.653
Nuclear: 15.316
Biomass: 16.485